US Government Problem: Video of the planes needed to actually fly into the WTCs are readily available to the public.

US Government Solution: Promote the Videos as ‘fake’ based on ‘pixel’ BS – This solves the ‘evidence’ problem while never noting that the planes are NOT commercial airliners – which are not structurally capable of performing the tasks and look nothing like the photographic proof that commercial airliners are ‘not in the picture’ and US Government Military Planes are ‘in the picture’. Actually, an excellent scam premise when pumped out by the covert op truth troops.

Wingtips say B 767-400ERE-10A is THE CLONE USED to fly into the WTCs – Unless someone has a version that matches the video better.

The videos show that a Boeing 767-400ER E-10A was the supposed Super-Powered’ Commercial Airliner’. (One of these all very similar clones is clearly seen – one version of these clones has the ‘swept’ back wingtips used to discredit the video as fakery by some… Boeing 767-400ER E-10A) All early videos show the pod and the swept back wing – Recently, I’ve seen newer posts of truth videos in which the planes have neither.

Something that is fake can prove nothing, except that it is fake. It can not prove whether, how, or even if an actual event happened or not. Of course for this premise of ‘fake’ video proving anything one must also believe that during planning…

Someone says, since the plan is to use hijacked airliners, “Hey, let’s not use real planes. Let’s truck the plane parts in, crews to lay them out, people to say they saw planes, etc, et al, and just make some fake videos of planes going into the towers. Now, when we make these fake videos, instead of photoshopping in a commercial airliner with windows, we’ll photoshop in the plane needed to actually do it. Everybody high fives and says, ‘yeah, it’s just our lives on the line for treason.’ ”

Next day, the moron is no longer a threat… most likely scenario, taken out by their own family out of fear they’d all be taken out. It’s ludicrous on multiple levels.. Not just one.

The Ivy Flats Video, the testing of the first micro nuke, the Davy Crockett, is a perfect example of a camera that simply is too slow. Sure, cameras are a lot faster now, so have the travel speeds. They capture erratic images AT BEST when velocity exceeds capture speed images/PIXELS distort. Fact as clearly seen on the Ivy Flats video as soldiers move off train watch what happens to their legs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv_q8q6Z9_I

Fake video is only important if one NEEDS to disprove video evidence that a SUPER POWERED IRREGULAR SHAPED, NON WINDOWED ‘COMMERCIAL AIRLINER’ FLEW INTO THE WTCS – INDIRECTLY, without drawing attention to the fact a military aircraft flew into the WTCs. It’s still being done today by so called ‘truthers’. Did the ‘truther orgs’ say? The US government has been caught using its own planes to destroy the WTCs? No everything was silent and then came the need for the ‘fake video’ call.

There are additional photos in original article ‘9 11 Fake Video Stars: The JSTAR Clones. Why Covert Ops Must Have Fake Video 9-11 Fake Video Stars – The JSTAR Clones 10-1-10 Note, the little blue decal up front – one of the WTC witnesses claims to have seen one on the ‘plane that flew into..) BTW, eye witness testimony – the LEAST valuable information WITHOUT additional evidence. http://www.rense.com/general92/911fk.htm

The wall was 12 ft thick, THE PLANE WAS NOT FILLED WITH WATER, but the tanks were to simulate fuel.

“But there was a test similar to what is described above. In 1988, an unmanned F-4 Phantom, ballasted with water and mounted on rails, was”flown” into a concrete wall at 480 MPH. As reported, the plane crumpled, and penetrated only about 2 inches of concrete. A very impressive test – except it wasn’t meant to be a test of nuclear reactor safety. The wall the F-4 crashed into was not a simulation of a nuclear plant’s wall. It was a 12-foot-thick wall mounted on an air cushion. The test was designed to study impact forces by measuring how far the impact would push the wall. Breaking through the concrete was the last thing any of the involved scientists wanted to achieve. Furthermore, the F-4 was ballasted with water to give it the same weight as a plane fully loaded with fuel, and its final weight was 42,000 pounds. Needless to say, crashing a 412,000 pound 767 loaded with fuel into a fixed wall would have slightly different results.

Because according to a 1982 study by the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois – a study which was conducted by request of the DOE and the NRC – the explosion from a 707 crashing into a containment dome at 466 MPH would probably overwhelm the reactor’s shielding. Note – that’s a 707, which weighs 336,000 pounds. In 1982 those were big jets. But we’ve “advanced” considerably since then. The 767s that were flown into the World Trade Center weighed 80,000 pounds more than that and carried a lot more fuel.

Sandia notes:
The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.

With very minimal damage to the concrete target block, the plane and its engines were easily converted into small chunks of metal confetti and shrapnel at the physical interface of the two impact objects. Upon initial impact, the follow-on rear portions of the plane yet to make contact retained their shape integrity until their respective impact. (This seriously contradicts claims by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins that the wings of a 757 would have folded forward, as well as claims in the popular press that the wings folded back before entering the “too-small” hole.) The resulting shear caused debris being spread out to the left, right, and rear of the impact locus, having no ability to proceed in their original vector path, having grossly failed the test of strength with the concrete block. However, the wings are wider than the concrete block, so the wingtips are sheared off whole, and they tumble forward after being cleanly separated from the aircraft.

F4 aircraft impacting a solid concrete barrier. Note that the wings and tail do not fold as the nose impacts the concrete. (source: don’t bother moved -http://www.sandia.gov/media/NRgallery00-03.htm)

Sugano (in itself) doesn’t show that a 757 hitting the Pentagon would be turned into confetti and small chunks, but it does show that an F4 was completely destroyed in arguably similar circumstances. Furthermore, it wasn’t anywhere close to an even contest between the wall and the F4. The F4 started with a speed of 215 m/sec — and the tail was still traveling at 185 m/sec when it smashed into the wall. The F4 is a very strongly build aircraft, although at 18 meters long and 19 kg, it’s about a third the length and a fifth the weight of the 757. In terms of comparing what would happen to a 757 versus what happened to the F4, it would be difficult to do an accurate calculation without detailed design information on both aircraft. In a preliminary analysis, the extra length of the 757 means that it has three times the distance to decelerate — but the 757 is also much heavier, so it’s more difficult for the crushing process to supply enough force to decelerate even as rapidly as the F4 did.” http://www.911-strike.com/missing-confetti.htm The article from the ‘pentagon disinformation unit’ counters the information from the ‘WTC no planes disinformation unit’.

Dr. Ed Ward MD, AS, BS, MD – Reporting and investigating Constitutional abuses of the US government for almost 2 decades. AS, BS in Medical Technology – Minor in Organic Chemistry and Physics, volunteer during the Viet Nam war 6 years stateside active duty ‘med tech’ ‘US Air Farce’ – a decade experience in Medical Technology. MD degree from LSU, New Orleans – 2 decades in the field of General Practice. (My) Articles are also referenced by valid experts in their field.

Great article and solid points. I’ve gotten a little annoyed with people claiming there were “no planes” and it seems to me like it’s another distraction to keep the public from discussing what really happened, in detail. Have a look at my recent post and feel encouraged to share it if you agree:

Your comments contain multiple unreferenced, false statements and conclusions, all of which are dealt with in the article. There are plenty of disinfo sites you can post that BS to. Meanwhile, when there are referenced facts that refute my referenced facts, please post them with references. It should be well known undocumented statements of ‘fact’ need documentation for those facts or they don’t make the cut on this site. Bonus – Many of your problems are coming from total disregard for total amount of energy present. Total energy = Mass X Velocity. Density, or more appropriately ‘viscosity’ – although I believe there is an even more appropriate term that escapes me at present – come into play on how much energy is displaced directly upon impact, along with a multitude of other variables. Even water at the appropriate velocity will cut steel. A ‘phew’ physics ‘phacts’ for you.

Update: Interesting fact, these a plane can’t do that, when told that water will cut steel, immediately respond that it is the ‘micron’ sized particles – merely adjuvants (assist) – that ‘are really’ cutting the steel. Imagine that, a tiny little ‘micro’ particle blasting it’s way through steel plate? The exact same thing they claim can NOT happen.

Lies eventually eat their young. It’s the mark of covert op disinformation. From one BS to the next, never addressing the massive evidence, but always plenty of ‘ad hominem’. Dr Ed

An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a coworker who was doing a little
homework on this. And he in fact ordered me dinner because
I found it for him… lol. So let me reword this….
Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending the time to talk about this
issue here on your site.